Alternate Light Gem

[SneaksieDave]

Well perhaps it's a poorly designed game then (which takes us back to the 'perfect design' problem).

 

Failed mantle attempts, inability to step off some ladders, getting flung off doorways to a speedy impact death against a wall, S.H.A.S, getting stuck in a crack in the floor, or under a low clearing - those are just a sampling of the known game-stoppers in Thief. All things that shouldn't happen in a real simulation, and are unfair to the player. Luckily we have saves.

 

(I can't believe we're on this topic again!)

[oDDity]

What are you babbling about?

None of those things have ever happened to me.

Why not just include:

-possibility of player having heart attack (or other critical medical problem)

-possibility of lighting strike on players home, hence power cut

-possibility of cat inadvertently walking on the keyboard and hitting the exact combination of keys necessary to shut it down.

Talk about grasping at straws...

 

And what's the worst that can happen even if any of these rare and freak occurrences do happen?

You have to start from the last save point.

Utter catastrophe, to be sure.

 

edit: And what do you currently do anyway? Make a quicksave every time before you mantle something in case you get stuck?

I mean, if you're so totally fucking anal as that, you'd be wiser to do something a little less stressful, like stamp collecting or synchronised crochet perhaps.

[SneaksieDave]

-possibility of player having heart attack (or other critical medical problem)

Heh, that's what S.H.A.S. is, silly. Every one of those things happens in game, some frequently.

[oDDity]

Well, if you're going to use arbitrary geekspeek acronyms, you can't expect normal people to know what they mean.

.

I can remember once with the wall sticking bug in Thief 2, even remember the map, it was precious cargo, but that's it. The reason I still remember after 5 years is because of it's rarity.

Any map that forces you do do some stupid jumping puzzle as the only way to complete the map isn't worth playing, period, and shouldn't even be included in the statistics.

[Nyarlathotep]

So, we're going to completely ignore a legitimate gameplay mechanic (one that, when done properly, can be quite fun) simply because it doesn't fit with your gameplay model?

 

If you're going to make a point, make it already, don't pussyfoot around it and insult the intelligence of everyone who can't read your mind by pretending that your meaning is obvious.

I already have. Orbweaver contradicted me (ironically in a way that wasn't technically contradictory), so I defended my statement. I apologize if my meaning was not obvious, but it's not my damn fault that apparently no one can read past the first two sentences in any of my paragraphs. (Why do I suddenly get the feeling that nobody is actually going to read that last sentence?)

 

By no means do I intend to unnecessarily insult one's intelligence--indeed, my argumentative style revolves around the readers being intelligent enough to either grasp my reasoning without further detail or recognize that they do not and then call me on it. I deliberately try to insert lines of questioning into my arguments so that the debate doesn't degrade to petty attacks and bickering over (generally irrelevant) semantics. I always assume (until sufficient counter-evidence presents itself) that my audience is either intelligent enough to pick up on these handouts or intelligent enough to strike out on their own line of reasoning. Demanding to see the "quantifiable measures" I was referring to when they were not pertinent to my argument is neither. (It's even worse when it's in a fucking tautological statement!) Doing so at the cost of defending against the actual argument is even worse. How the hell am I insulting people's intelligence when they make themselves look like idiots?

 

That's a problem of a badly designed map. I don't remember any such problems of having to do something 50 times in any of the OMs, or even the FMs I've played.

You can't hold up an example of a very badly designed map combined with bad game mechanics in an old game engine as an argument for having unlimited saves.

It'd be up to you to design a map better than that if you actually expect people to play and finish it.

Plenty of games have had limited saves already ,and none of them were perfectly designed.

You're absolutely right. The problem is that TDM is not closed-cycle development--it's designed to be a mapper's resource. Any "feature" that requires a mapper to design around it rather than fit in naturally with the mapper's intent is a limitation, not to mention an exercise frustration for mappers and players (in the case of careless mappers) alike.

[Domarius]

So, we're going to completely ignore a legitimate gameplay mechanic (one that, when done properly, can be quite fun) simply because it doesn't fit with your gameplay model?

Yes - avoid jumping puzzles. In nearly all FPS games, they suck, because you have so little control over where you land than in real life. That's why in platform games (2D and 3D) they give you air-control before you land.

 

It's no surprise it's one of the main reasons why people want to save so often.

 

If I was making a map with save points, and it just HAD to have a jump in it, I'd put a save point right there.

Any "feature" that requires a mapper to design around it rather than fit in naturally with the mapper's intent is a limitation, not to mention an exercise frustration for mappers and players (in the case of careless mappers) alike.

But my intent is to design my map around save points.

[Domarius]

There's no way a feature like this would get into any game unless the player could enable it at their choosing, so it's as pointless as arguing wether crouch should be a toggle or a held button, because there is enough support for it either way, and no amount of the word "fuck" will change that.

[oDDity]

You're absolutely right. The problem is that TDM is not closed-cycle development--it's designed to be a mapper's resource. Any "feature" that requires a mapper to design around it rather than fit in naturally with the mapper's intent is a limitation, not to mention an exercise frustration for mappers and players (in the case of careless mappers) alike.

 

Well I find that hard to accept - that we have to reduce the game mechanics to the lowest common denominator, i.e. the dumbest map maker with the least ability to make a decent playable map that doesn't necessitate unlimited quicksaving.

And yes, I'd be happy for auto save points to be included before jumping puzzle sections. (not that I'd ever play such a map)

[Crispy]

I apologize if my meaning was not obvious, but it's not my damn fault that apparently no one can read past the first two sentences in any of my paragraphs. (Why do I suddenly get the feeling that nobody is actually going to read that last sentence?)

I read everything you said before I posted. Several times. I didn't see any defence of your position that I understood; just a statement of your position, and in my opinion that's not good enough. I was actually asking for more information.

 

Demanding to see the "quantifiable measures" I was referring to when they were not pertinent to my argument is neither. (It's even worse when it's in a fucking tautological statement!) [...] How the hell am I insulting people's intelligence when they make themselves look like idiots?

"Beauty is not subjective, but it's also not any of the objective measures W, X, Y, or Z."

"So how is it objective, then? I've never heard anyone refer to any objective measures of beauty besides W, X, Y, or Z. Not all of us take university philosophy classes."

"WTF!!!! That's not pertinent to my argument! It was a fucking tautological statement!!!! You're making yourself look like an idiot!"

"..."

 

Granted, I probably shouldn't have been so snippy, but your condescending "it's obvious!" attitude pissed me off.

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

Any map that forces you do do some stupid jumping puzzle as the only way to complete the map isn't worth playing,

Same. I think asking the player for acrobatics, you never know if you really have to do them or is it just a special move which is optional and will get you into special places. I never exert myself when playing, and don't complete some missions as a result.

 

 

So, we're going to completely ignore a legitimate.... mention an exercise frustration for mappers and players (in the case of careless mappers) alike.

I think it's nice to abandon grammar and thoroughness in favour of brevity in your posts, the above was long - some things can be understood. Some people read every post, and in fact I think it can expected of those who participate in the forum - thereby placing a limit on amount of participants, or amount of written material.

[Chi Haotian]

Failed mantle attempts, inability to step off some ladders, getting flung off doorways to a speedy impact death against a wall, S.H.A.S, getting stuck in a crack in the floor, or under a low clearing - those are just a sampling of the known game-stoppers in Thief. All things that shouldn't happen in a real simulation, and are unfair to the player. Luckily we have saves.

 

Aren't those the game-stopping issues exclusive to Dark Engine? Whereas the save optimization (save restriction) is being proposed for D3-based mod. D3 has no known issues of the sort.

 

So the only thing unlimited saving ensures against is accidental failure due to poor mission design. Then implementing save optimization would only encourage mission designers to build properly and with good quality.

[sparhawk]

So the only thing unlimited saving ensures against is accidental failure due to poor mission design.

 

You mean apart from the issue that D3 crashed on me every second reload. And jsut to be sure, a reload also takes place when you switch a map. Of course, I still can play a full map, but if the crash happens, I have no way of recovering.

[OrbWeaver]

Aren't those the game-stopping issues exclusive to Dark Engine? Whereas the save optimization (save restriction) is being proposed for D3-based mod. D3 has no known issues of the sort.

 

All code has bugs, as do all missions. You are clearly not a coder if you think that the solution is simply to "create problem-free code".

[SneaksieDave]

So the only thing unlimited saving ensures against is accidental failure due to poor mission design. Then implementing save optimization would only encourage mission designers to build properly and with good quality.

It also allows me and the rest of the majority of gamers to play the game in the way in which we wish. As a bonus, those wishing for save restrictions can still have them, provided they have sufficient self discipline to impose the rule upon their play. I have the discipline to keep from using cheat codes, so there's no reason why it can't be done. And if they don't have that discipline, there's no reason the rest of the majority should have to suffer for that shortcoming.

 

So, was there actually something to add, or were you just kicking a calmed hornet's nest?

[Order of the Hammer Bureaucrat]

I think he's talking about mission design, not coding. Like not requiring the player to jump across a huge gap, onto some ledge or down some crates, or any other necessary excessive acrobatics which frequently lead to reloading.

[oDDity]

You mean apart from the issue that D3 crashed on me every second reload. And jsut to be sure, a reload also takes place when you switch a map. Of course, I still can play a full map, but if the crash happens, I have no way of recovering.

 

That's no a problem for a save point system, if it only crashes while you're reloading, you aren't going to lose nay progress. That's more an annoying problem for the unlimited save system, since you'll be saving and loading a lot more often - before you turn every corner like the way some cheating twats play it.

[Chi Haotian]

All code has bugs, as do all missions.

Yes. Still, the probability of encountering code bugs fatal to the gameplay is negligible. Perhaps less than the probability of an externality terminating the gameplay (software crash, power outage). And unlimited saving is helpless to prevent loss in either case, because both happen unexpectedly.

 

On the other hand, save restriction would at least help minimize mission bugs, as designers (level modelers) would be mindful of it when creating environment.

 

So, was there actually something to add

Well, yes. I was not trying to reiterate the direct benefit of save optimization to an individual player's experience (that can indeed be attained simply by choosing not to save frivolously) but its incidental effect on the entire project in the future: missions with more challenging gameplay, one that necessitates intensity, correctness and circumspection. Missions built to favour such gameplay strictly. For which, this save-restricting feature would have to be implemented and inalterable.

[OrbWeaver]

its incidental effect on the entire project in the future: missions with more challenging gameplay, one that necessitates intensity, correctness and circumspection. Missions built to favour such gameplay strictly.

 

The purpose of the Dark Mod is to provide a toolkit which gives mission designers free reign to design missions how they want, not to impose policy or dictate a "correct" way of mapping. We can come up with all sorts of ideas about how authors "should" design their maps, but enforcing this is not a function of the mod and never has been.

[Mr Retarded]

The purpose of the Dark Mod is to provide a toolkit which gives mission designers free reign to design missions how they want, not to impose policy or dictate a "correct" way of mapping. We can come up with all sorts of ideas about how authors "should" design their maps, but enforcing this is not a function of the mod and never has been.

 

Word.

[Chi Haotian]

We can come up with all sorts of ideas about how authors "should" design their maps, but enforcing this is not a function of the mod and never has been.

It's not so much enforcing a way of mapping, as it is giving a slight accent to any way of mapping or mission design in general. It is not antithetical to a toolkit.

 

You could say that the first Dark Engine/Thief toolkits enforced a way of designing missions in which the player had to adhere to stealth tactics instead of being able to blast away all enemies with powerful weapons. The designers still had the free reign to design missions of the former kind, but that wouldn't be feasible from the overall gameplay perspective.

 

The way I see it, save optimization would only be an improvement upon the kind of gameplay Thief Series have created.

[Mr Retarded]

You could say that the first Dark Engine/Thief toolkits enforced a way of designing missions in which the player had to adhere to stealth tactics instead of being able to blast away all enemies with powerful weapons. The designers still had the free reign to design missions of the former kind, but that wouldn't be feasible from the overall gameplay perspective.

 

While that's true, the Dark Engine was NOT designed for fan missions. It was designed so that the creators of the game could actually make the game. This is a toolkit to make fan missions and, as far as I'm concerned, it should be less limited than a "professional" release because it doesn't have the limitations of what the original creators had in mind for their single player game / story arc.

 

That means, limited saves should be up to the mapper. After all, the mapper is in control of the difficulty of his/her map, right? Surely, certain maps could have a mapper defined variable of the number of saves for each difficulty on their map that they release?

 

That probably wasn't very clear. If not, please say so and I'll try to extrapolate on my ideas. Extrapolate is probably the wrong word to use, but... Whatever.

Edited May 4, 2007 by Mr Retarded

[OrbWeaver]

It's not so much enforcing a way of mapping, as it is giving a slight accent to any way of mapping or mission design in general. It is not antithetical to a toolkit.

 

It's giving an accent to a form of gameplay which is despised by a large segment of the player community. Alienating 50 per cent of your audience is not a good way to make a successfull mod.

[thestemmer]

Interestingly, the commercial release of Penumbra seems to have exactly the kind of checkpoint-save system you guys have been talking about: Penumbra Review.

The reviewer seemed quite baffled by it.

 

In any case, I have to agree with Orbweaver on this issue. Given the technical limitations of computers and people's time, it's just needlessly inconsiderate to players to limit their saves, especially those with low-end PCs. When my girlfriend plays Oblivion on her aging desktop, she usually saves every five minutes or so -- not because she likes to "cheat" but because the game is prone to crashing at random times. Even if TDM is well-coded and generally stable, there's no way of ensuring that it will be stable on every system. You also have to consider the fact that PCs aren't just gaming systems, they're also workstations -- which means you're constantly opening and closing things and doing other things besides gaming. Save point systems might be OK for console games, where you can just pause it if you need to do something else, but with a PC you can't just do that -- maybe you suddenly realize you need to write up a document, or use the internet, or do some 3d animation or whatever. You can't just alt-tab out of most new games without causing them to crash.

[ZylonBane]

The reviewer seemed quite baffled by it.

To clarify, he seems baffled by the developers' decision to implement save-anywhere functionality, but then require manually modifying a text file to enable it.

[Domarius]

Ah. Well I'm not baffled, but surprised at their boldness.

 

To me, the reason is obvious - people might just persevere with it, not knowing how to change it, and experience something new as a result.

 

But I am surprised. The furthest I might go is have a menu option (easily found) which is save points limited by default.